FROM

The RSPCA issued a fine, but Nicholas Seafood decided to take the matter
to court, resulting in the conviction of an Act of Animal Cruelty and a
$1,500 fine. The company has said its staff have now been properly trained
to kill the lobsters in a manner considered “humane” according to government
guidelines.

A popular seafood store in Sydney, Australia, was charged with animal
cruelty for its treatment of lobsters, resulting in the first animal cruelty
conviction in New South Wales (NSW) involving crustaceans. In both the U.S.
and Australia, no matter how horrendously they are treated, it is rare for
criminal cruelty charges to be brought in cases involving animals who are
considered “food.” This is especially true when those animals are
non-vertebrates, making this case particularly notable.

The conviction of Nicholas Seafood resulted from an inspection by the NSW
Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals (RSPCA) after it obtained video
showing a worker butchering a lobster alive with no attempt to render the
animal unconscious beforehand, in violation of NSW’s Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act. The video shows a lobster struggling to escape during the
dismembering process, remaining alive after the animal’s tail is cut
off—which according to the RSCPA does not kill but causes immense pain—and
before being put through a band saw.

The RSPCA issued a fine, but Nicholas Seafood decided to take the matter
to court, resulting in the conviction of an Act of Animal Cruelty and a
$1,500 fine. The company has said its staff have now been properly trained
to kill the lobsters in a manner considered “humane” according to government
guidelines.

Whether crustaceans are covered under animal cruelty laws depends on how the
specific legislation defines “animal.” There is no national animal
protection law in Australia, but each state or territory has its own law
protecting animals. Some restrict the definition of animal to vertebrates,
but others, including NSW, include crustaceans in that definition.
Crustaceans were added to NSW’s Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act in 1997
“after it was medically proven they feel pain.” In contrast to the
vertebrate species included in the law, crustaceans are only covered when
being prepared as food.

In addition to about half of Australian states and territories, New Zealand,
Norway and Switzerland include crustaceans in their national animal
protection legislation. United Kingdom animal advocacy group Crustacean
Compassion is currently campaigning for crabs, lobsters and other
crustaceans to be included under the definition of “animal” in the Animal
Welfare Act 2006 of England and Wales.

The historical justification for excluding non-vertebrates from animal
cruelty laws is predicated in part on the belief that they are unable to
feel pain, a belief which has begun to crumble under the weight of mounting
scientific evidence to the contrary. As research has begun to show that
lobsters and crabs experience pain and suffer distress, interest in their
wellbeing has increased.

In the U.S. too, whether crustaceans are covered by criminal animal cruelty
laws depends on how each state’s applicable statue defines “animal.” Even if
crustaceans are not expressly excluded, it is highly unlikely a prosecutor
would pursue cruelty charges against a seafood company. A 2013 People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) undercover investigation into
cruelty at a Maine lobster plant is illustrative. Video revealed lobsters
and crabs being ripped apart while alive and fully conscious, and the
organization filed a complaint requesting the owner of the facility be
investigated for possible violations of the state’s criminal animal cruelty
statute. Although Maine’s animal cruelty statute covers “every living,
sentient creature” besides human beings, the district attorney declined to
pursue charges, asserting “it is far from clear that the Legislature
intended to include lobsters and crabs within this definition…the opposite
intention is more likely.”

Despite the general lack of legal protections for aquatic animals, there is
reason to be optimistic. Along with the groundbreaking outcome of the
Nicholas Seafood case, public awareness is growing about the capacities of
crustaceans and other aquatic animals such as fish, who also have little to
no protection under the law despite their widespread (and increasing) use in
intensive farming and research.

In another positive development, the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis
& Clark Law School recently launched a new, first-of-its-kind Aquatic Animal
Law Initiative (AALI), which works to protect and promote the interests of
aquatic animals by advocating on their behalf through the legal system and
providing education about their cognitive, emotional and physiological
capacities. As the first entity to focus on questions broadly relating to
the legal protection of aquatic animals, we can expect the AALI to play a
significant role in steering policy, law and public opinion about these
vastly misunderstood animals in a more humane direction.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.